ORDER :

By this petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 31st October 2023 passed by the respondent-Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, refusing an application filed on behalf of the petitioner for inclusion of its registered trade mark/TikTok in the list of well known marks under Rule 124 of the Trade Mark Rules 2017. It is the case of the petitioner that the statutory provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Rules framed thereunder, were not taken into consideration in a proper perspective by the said respondent while passing the impugned order.

Before referring to the rival submissions, it would be appropriate to briefly refer to the relevant facts.

The petitioner is a technology company operating a range of content platforms, including a platform/mobile application bearing the mark TikTok. It is undisputed that TikTok is a registered trade mark. It is stated that TikTok is a social media video application for creating and sharing short talent videos. The videos are allowed to be created by the users of the application on short music and lip-syncing videos for uploading on the application.

The application was launched worldwide in the year 2017 and it employs Artificial Intelligence to analyze interests and preferences of users through their interaction with the content and it displays a personalized content feed to each user. By the year 2019, the aforesaid application TikTok was available in 155 markets and in 75 languages. It gained immense popularity and at a point in time, its downloads surpassed those of FaceBook, YouTube and Instagram. It is stated that while the petitioner has already obtained registration for its mark TikTok in India, some other applications for registration are pending before the respondent. In the statement of case placed before the respondent, the petitioner staked its claim for inclusion in the list of well known marks in terms of the provisions of the Trade Marks Act. Accordingly, the proceeding under Rule 124 of the Trade Mark Rules for inclusion of the mark TikTok in the list of well known trade marks was initiated. The said respondent kept the matter for

hearing and after hearing, by the impugned order, the application filed by the petitioner was refused. The main reason recorded in the impugned order was that the application TikTok was found to be controversial by the Government of India and it stood banned in India, as the Government of India found the said application to be prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India and for other such reasons.

Ms. Swati Mittal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the impugned order can be said to be an order passed without reasons as certain press releases of the Government of India were quoted and without any application of mind, the impugned order was passed resulting in refusal of the application filed on behalf of the petitioner for inclusion of the mark TikTok in the list of well known marks. It was submitted that the non-application of mind was further evident from the fact that the said respondent made reference to Section 9 of the Trade Marks Act, which had no concern with the application filed by the petitioner. Only Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act was relevant, which was not even referred to and therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

It was further submitted that elaborate material was placed before the said respondent to justify the prayer for inclusion of the mark TikTok in the list of well known marks, but no reference was made to the same in the impugned order for refusing the application.

It was submitted that therefore, the only reason discernible from the impugned order is the ban on the application TikTok issued by the Government of India by referring to a news item published in the magazine India Today. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the ban imposed on some of the applications, along with the application of the petitioner, was lifted and therefore, mere